Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[smkovalinksy]

As usual I feel compelled to correct a pmf post:

Having said that, I also must note that the Posters on the JREF Continuation concluded just this morning that absolutely nothing can really be taken from facial expressions or body language.
Since this conclusion was necessary to prove another of their talking points about innocence, I was a bit skeptical reading that.
But ...hey...they are never wrong...just ask them

Bizarrily enough many of these groupies have said that they were convinced of AK/RS innocence just by looking at their picture. Preston paved the way with this strange observation and others duly followed.

It was Pilot who said he felt body language was only an art form, and nothing near a science, and that Knox's attorney's movements meant nothing.

Secondly, I have never said body language is meaningless. I said it is not an exact science. Nor that Knox and Sollectio "look innocent", nor has anyone I know said this: The focus has been on evidence.

Sigh. I wish I did not care when they deliberately muddle things. Ah, well..... I always bite the bait........

 

[Grinder]

My point is that when she voluntarily asked for pen and paper, and wrote in English without provocation, she fudged. She put her confusion down on to paper. It did not give the police a reason to stop.

An interesting point would have been if she HAD right from the git-go said, "Don't be silly, Lumumba's never been to our house," and simply repeated it through all the stress, the outcome for Lumumba may have been the same.

The police had the SMS messages in AK's phone, between AK and PL. It may have been the same outcome, except that there definitely (even I would admit) be no reason for a calunnia charge against AK.

What is this fudged you use over and over.

She told the police according to the chief things "we knew not to be correct" - which may have included "I DON'T THINK Lumumba has been to our house and I was not there when Meredith was murdered." but they didn't stop questioning her "until she buckled and told us what we knew to be correct" - that would be the Patrick story.

She did what you suggested for 3 days but finally they were successful in getting her to tell what they wanted.

 

[Poppy1016]

I think the way Mach and maybe Billy think is that she did tell an untruth and that's that. It might be a little like someone that had been drinking and was over the allowable BAC but was found not to have anything to do with a fatal accident but would still be guilty of driving drunk.

I would not agree because it our case the analogy would have to include the police pouring alcohol down the throat of the "drunk" driver.

Somehow those that maintain she should have held up, called a lawyer, or fully recanted; don't seem to be able to feel what it would be like to be thrown in hole in a foreign country at a fairly young age.

I'm sorry that I didn't make my statement clear. I was referring to AK appealing the calunnia charge. Won't the Supreme Court see that if she was innocent of all charges, she couldn't "knowingly" accuse anyone.

 

[Bill Williams]

As usual I feel compelled to correct a pmf post:

It was Pilot who said he felt body language was only an art form, and nothing near a science, and that Knox's attorney's movements meant nothing.

Secondly, I have never said body language is meaningless. I said it is not an exact science. Nor that Knox and Sollectio "look innocent", nor has anyone I know said this: The focus has been on evidence.

Sigh. I wish I did not care when they deliberately muddle things. Ah, well..... I always bite the bait........

The problem I have with attempts to read "body language" as well as with those who claim to be able to do "statement analysis" is that the outcomes almost invariably betray the incoming biases of the person doing it.

I was taken by a comment on the TJMK page where someone was just waiting for the first AK interview, so that they could subject the text to "statement analysis".

Hey, I'll save you time - I'll tell you what you will say even before the much anticipated AK interview.

You're going to say, "AK is a lying weasel. Why do I say that? Because you're posting this to the TJMK site! Why bother waiting for the interview!"

I have a backgound in stuff resembling "statement analysis", and the first thing one looks for is an unbiased interpretor. You also look for someone conversant in a whole range of cultural cues, unique to various cultures. Gender roles, and class-related roles are cues, too. Turns of phrase are culturally unique - what is acceptable balck humour to some is verbotin to others..... you have to be an expert in the sociology of language to even attmept it.

One thing for sure, anyone who does this seriously would say that it is NOT an exact science. Things like......

AK: "I didn't do it."
Statement Analysis - "she's definitely lying. Notice the way she doesn't bring in Raffaele into her denial. He must be guilty too."

 

[Paninaro]

My point is that when she voluntarily asked for pen and paper, and wrote in English without provocation, she fudged. She put her confusion down on to paper. It did not give the police a reason to stop.

An interesting point would have been if she HAD right from the git-go said, "Don't be silly, Lumumba's never been to our house," and simply repeated it through all the stress, the outcome for Lumumba may have been the same.

The police had the SMS messages in AK's phone, between AK and PL. It may have been the same outcome, except that there definitely (even I would admit) be no reason for a calunnia charge against AK.

Calunnia is not a crime in most countries, is it? And for a good reason. Knox never intended to go public with any allegations of Lumumba and thus defame him. That this happened was the doing of the Perugian Police and prosecutor Mignini. They could have avoided this false information altogether.

Knox was a suspect and her only duty was to defend herself against false accusations bÿ the police. If she lied it was justifiable under the circumstances. Presuming of course she really was innocent.

 

[Dougm]

Lumumba's lawyer most certainly stopped at that point. Even I think that is taking the statement out of context. My point is that AK gave the police no reason to stop. I was tempted to say no clear reason to stop.

At some point she eventually did. Kudos to her.

So, yes, I am "pro-guilt" on the calunnia charge. Not on the others.

Am I the only one in the universe who thinks Hellmann and his crew got it right, meaning "got it right" on ALL the charges?

Didn't mean to lable you, I just had to say somehow to describe people who think she is guilty. In your case, only of the calumnia.

I understand the point -- I had thought it was much more likely that they could find her guilty of that charge, even though I personally don't think she did it. I also don't agree with those who say that if she is not guilty of the murder she cannot be guilty of the calumnia, because I think it is technically possible for someone to maliciously blame someone of a crime, without having been involved in the crime itself.

I just think that, if I was in Italy, and told the police that I am confused and am not sure what happened, and XY and Z happened, but also say that I want to make clear that I should probably not be listened to because my memory is confused, that they should not be taking my word for it, and I have made it clear that I am not clear. Confusing, I know, but that is what she was at that point. They should have used evidence to arrest people, not some confused statement of an exhausted and confused young woman who did not even understand fully what they were asking her.

 

[Bill Williams]

What is this fudged you use over and over.

I am at a loss to know how to say it differently.

She voluntarily asked for pen and paper, she said "I stand by the statements I made last night..." then starting writing about confusions. She said that she knows this is a confusing aspect of her character and that there is conflicting information she is aware of passing on.

In this case, I think the use of the word "fudged" is generous. But accurate.

What else can I say? If you're not convinced I'll try to handle the disappointment through strong drink....

 

[bookworm]

The legal picture you describe is not possible in the law (not by the Italian law); the definition of person not sentencable is strictly codified and cannot fit this case.
But I am talking about lies she told days before she signed accusations against Lumumba.

Thank you for the welcome Kestrel! But I do have another question now. Bill Williams asked Machiavelli what are the lies referenced above. Machiavelli, what are these lies? I would like to know that, too.

 

[Grinder]

I am at a loss to know how to say it differently.

She voluntarily asked for pen and paper, she said "I stand by the statements I made last night..." then starting writing about confusions. She said that she knows this is a confusing aspect of her character and that there is conflicting information she is aware of passing on.

In this case, I think the use of the word "fudged" is generous. But accurate.

What else can I say? If you're not convinced I'll try to handle the disappointment through strong drink....

Bill I think you are fudging.

I think you know full well that she was not free to speak the truth when she wrote her notes "voluntarily". She was in jail. She had enough time to figure out part of what was going on and was trying to repair what they forced out of her.

Please try to understand that she wasn't at home in front of a computer researching false confessions.

If you think fudged is generous then say what you really mean.

Given the actual circumstances of being in solitary in a foreign country after having been manipulated into her signed statements in Italian what exactly would an unfudged statement have looked like?

Something like: "I'm sure Patrick is innocent because even though you say you have evidence he and I were there, I'm sure I wasn't; therefore, he couldn't have been"

ETA - Why do you always use only the first part of the statement - "I stand by the statements I made last night..." ? Clearly the rest of it undoes the statements.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you for the welcome Kestrel! But I do have another question now. Bill Williams asked Machiavelli what are the lies referenced above. Machiavelli, what are these lies? I would like to know that, too.

You will have to wait a bit before I post a list in English. I have other posts to write before. Moreover I don't want to open infinite topics of discussions. But also, this specific point, I have always been reluctant to unfold it entirely on a discussion forum. I don't know if it is a good venue. I think I will make a short summary about them some day; however by now it is yet interesting to complete the discussion on just details and parts of this evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Does anybody else find it interesting that the very tabs that John K wrote for are now the ones printing the pics of Amanda and upsetting the Kerchers.

 

[smkovalinksy]

The problem I have with attempts to read "body language" as well as with those who claim to be able to do "statement analysis" is that the outcomes almost invariably betray the incoming biases of the person doing it.

I was taken by a comment on the TJMK page where someone was just waiting for the first AK interview, so that they could subject the text to "statement analysis".

Hey, I'll save you time - I'll tell you what you will say even before the much anticipated AK interview.

You're going to say, "AK is a lying weasel. Why do I say that? Because you're posting this to the TJMK site! Why bother waiting for the interview!"

I have a backgound in stuff resembling "statement analysis", and the first thing one looks for is an unbiased interpretor. You also look for someone conversant in a whole range of cultural cues, unique to various cultures. Gender roles, and class-related roles are cues, too. Turns of phrase are culturally unique - what is acceptable balck humour to some is verbotin to others..... you have to be an expert in the sociology of language to even attmept it.

One thing for sure, anyone who does this seriously would say that it is NOT an exact science. Things like......

AK: "I didn't do it."
Statement Analysis - "she's definitely lying. Notice the way she doesn't bring in Raffaele into her denial. He must be guilty too."

I wish they had applause emotions on this site (those little guys clapping their hands) as I would give you a round of applause. Or 5 stars. When Knox gave her statement before the court and said, "I did not kill my friend. I did not rape. I did not steal.", the statement analysis said, "Notice she says, "my friend" and not "Meredith", thus distancing herself from her victim."

 

[smkovalinksy]

Does anybody else find it interesting that the very tabs that John K wrote for are now the ones printing the pics of Amanda and upsetting the Kerchers.

You don't say. Well, it would make a certain amount of sense, and I guess it is a convoluted form of PR making them appear victims and keeping Knox looking bad . (Needless to say, they are in one sense, profoundly victims; but this is in no way relevant nor excuses this sort of thing). Ah, ...... What a sordid business.

 

[Bill Williams]

Given the actual circumstances of being in solitary in a foreign country after having been manipulated into her signed statements in Italian what exactly would an unfudged statement have looked like?

Something like: "I'm sure Patrick is innocent because even though you say you have evidence he and I were there, I'm sure I wasn't; therefore, he couldn't have been"

That is unfudged. Although in AK's case it would have had to have been, "I have no idea if PL is innocent or guilty, I was not there." If she'd left it at that, then I would take "fudged" off the table.

ETA - Why do you always use only the first part of the statement - "I stand by the statements I made last night..." ? Clearly the rest of it undoes the statements.

The first part of this quote, you are of course correct. It should always be quoted intact. My humble apologies. Seriously.

Clearly, though, the rest of it does not undo anything, it adds confusion, just like she (honestly) admits to be doing.

That's a criticism of what I'm outlining that I've never understood. It's like A + B = B, because by adding B to A, A is suddenly zero only in the act of adding something to it.

The absolutely most genuine, truthful thing AK says in the schmozzle is what I underlined way, way upthread. "Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think."

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, even AK knows the mess she's making.....

And for the record, I know AK's answer to the implied question that guilters spring on, "in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death."

Guilters right this moment are posting on TJMK site, "See! See! She admits involvement in MK's death! What a buch of biased dorks for trying to twist the obvious!"

What is obvious to me is that if you were to ask what her involvement was, her answer would be "zero". That has the added benefit of actually being true.

But there is no way in God's green earth that any of the clauses AK puts into that note negate any other clause. Even she admits it is part of a contrasting whole. Is this not plain as day?

 

[Grinder]

But there is no way in God's green earth that any of the clauses AK puts into that note negate any other clause. Even she admits it is part of a contrasting whole. Is this not plain as day?

If she made her statements from the cozy confines of her home, then maybe.

You keep ignoring the fact that she was in solitary confinement in a jail in Italy with no access to anyone.

Isn't clear as day that she was trying to recant but was worried they would put back figuratively on the water board and therefore didn't undo the statement in unconditional terms because that statement had finally released her from the interrogation.

Why do you think she "fudged" if she is innocent? Do you think she accused Patrick because she is just mean and evil?

 

[Machiavelli]

I think it's much about politics and face saving and this might be the reason. Or not. I actually don't care as it doesn't really matter.
If the calunnia conviction is wrong depends on how you see it. (...)

This is something I call racism.
Albeit it is something you don't acknowledge. I don't want to divert on politics, but just to express the comparison, it's like when I say Israel is a racist country and the Palestinian issue is something to be considered like the South Africa case, there are some people who don't understand why I see it like that. They more or less think I want the "distruction of Israel", which can be seen as true in a sense, and don't seem to grasp at first sight why I see some things as wrong.

On our case, in your statement, to think that "the reason doesn't matter" is racism. It is a statement centered on a world, or on a self.
Whether another person - as a judge or any other - is innocent or guilty of such corruption, it matters, as much as it matters to know if Knox is guilty or not.
There is a denial of another world. This whole world is not seen, not considered, doesn't need to have an apparent or possible logic.
I understand the argument that your own investigation is your main basis, and you are not based on Hellmann's decisions nor on other contexts. But your own investigation is only focused on a little portion of reality. The meaning of few elements is attributed without considering their relation to any context.

The calunnia conviction is not right or wrong depending on how you see it: the calunnia is a crime, a felony, that means something objective. People who commit it must objectively pay. To say it's subjective is like saying that theft is subjective: some people do make these claims "I steal a public object or evade taxes" and this is wrong or right depending what you think: if you think it's wrong to pay taxes you may think it's right to unlawfully evade them. It's a theft or not, depends who you think is the owner of the object.

But this really makes no sense, since the action is objective, the calunnia is an action, not a judgement; such action, the false accusation of an innocent, would be illegal in the US and in almost all countries as well - even if the rules for proving it would be different and the reasons or conditions for its being unlawful or prosecuted might be different - but no matter if the action is illegal or not, this doesn't change the fact that the action took place.
And the action of calunnia is defined as a voluntary action, a false accusation or a voluntary release of false evidence against a person whom is known to be innocent, to an authority, in order to obstruct justice. The key of this criminal action is the acknowledgment that it was done voluntarily, deliberately, maliciously, not as a result of force, not in state of incapacity or limitation of free will. You might be skeptical on the proof of this. But the action is objective, proof of voluntariness can only be verified or disproven, it does not depend on how you see it.

 

[Machiavelli]

...
I've noticed one of Machiavelli's main themes here is that what Knox said was proven to be untrue therefore she lied. And she could only lie if she was guilty. Therefore she is guilty. Unfortunately that is not how Americans that I know understand the word lie. A lie is an intentional deception here. In other words, without the intent to deceive, a lie cannot exist. Furthermore, Machiavelli has expressed that a lie by omission is not always in fact a lie - look at his statements regarding shopkeepers responding "nothing" when asked what they remember only to step forward after thinking about it a year. In America, we would view it by and large as suspect if someone said "nothing" then later clarified it to something. We would prefer people to say "I don't recall" an admission that there may be something that could be recalled later, because to say nothing when there may in fact be something would be an intentional deceit to us.

Note that I am not trying to say that my impression of Machiavelli's cultural differences to what I have observed in America are in any way truely representative of the differences between our cultures, but it is sort of an impression I have.

I think the different understanding is only logical, not cultural.
I don't hink Amanda "lied" because she said false things, but because she intentionally mislead the investigation, and because I can infer that her was a false testimony, and entirely false story.
Moreover, Sollecito lied too, if we had a secod reliable witness who didn't lie, even the issue of Amanda's lies could be overcome and replaced by his testimony; but we have two liars.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think this is what has puzzled me the most. How so many intelligent people can spend energy bending the facts to their overarching ideal of what ought to be the truth of the case.

And yet, I suppose we all do this from time to time, in various areas of life. An illustration: when my husband got cancer, I read an alternative medicine site that said a diagnosis of cancer is often not cancer at all. Against my better judgment, I clung to this, on and on, against all doctor reports, all sonograms and x-rays, against my husband's obvious deterioration - until in the end I had to admit that I was repressing the truth , which was fatal.

Of course, I had a definite and obvious motive: I did not want to lose my beloved to death, nor did I want my life to change. In the end, both occurred. But I keep wondering what the motive of pro-guilt people would specifically be.

But I have no motive. I have nothing to loose and to gain from a conclusion or another.
It's just that I see one thing as true and the other as false: I am not bending things to theories. I don't even have a theory about this murder.

 

[Machiavelli]

RoseMontague,

On the other hand Federico's mother got charged when she called the cops "animals," IIRC.

Federico's mother got actually charged - a criminal lawsuit - when she stated that judge Marieamanuela Guerra did not investigate on Federico's death (which is in fact the truth). Because of this statement, she is currently under trial for defamantion.

 

[Dougm]

But this really makes no sense, since the action is objective, the calunnia is an action, not a judgement; such action, the false accusation of an innocent, would be illegal in the US and in almost all countries as well - even if the rules for proving it would be different and the reasons or conditions for its being unlawful or prosecuted might be different - but no matter if the action is illegal or not, this doesn't change the fact that the action took place.

But Calumnia as a crime does not exist in the US. Suspects accuse others all the time, to try to throw the cops off the trail. The police check it out, and if the evidence is weak or proves that the suspect is really guilty, they get convicted of that crime. The person accused could sue in civil court, but I don't think this happens too often.

I can't help but wonder, why has Rudy not been charged with Calumnia? He claimed Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith, and that is false. Does it shield him that he wrote it in a letter that Mignini read in court? I don't see why.

What about Patrick? He has stated in public awful things about Knox, and his attorney made all sorts of charges about her in court, which are proveably false. He called her "sex obsessed", and a "witch". Is that OK?

This law seems to be selectively applied.